Mohd Yaseen
When a language recognized by the Constitution is ignored in its own homeland, it is not a minor administrative oversight. It is a serious lapse that raises fundamental questions about fairness, representation, and institutional sensitivity. The recent Assistant recruitment notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India has brought such a lapse into sharp focus by excluding Dogri from the list of local languages for Jammu.
The issue is as clear as it is troubling. The notification includes Jammu as a recruitment centre and prescribes knowledge of the local language as an essential eligibility criterion.
However, the languages listed for Jammu are Hindi, Urdu, and Kashmiri. Dogri, the principal mother tongue of the region and a constitutionally recognized language, finds no mention. This omission is not only surprising but deeply unjustifiable.
A recruitment process that seeks to evaluate local linguistic competence cannot afford to ignore the primary language of the region it represents. Doing so not only distorts the linguistic reality but also creates an uneven framework that disadvantages a large section of candidates. For many young aspirants in Jammu, Dogri is not just a language they speak.
It is the language in which they think, learn, and express themselves. To exclude it from consideration is to implicitly question its legitimacy.
To fully grasp the gravity of this exclusion, one must understand what Dogri signifies. It is far more than a medium of communication. Dogri embodies the cultural soul of Jammu region. It carries within it centuries of history, oral traditions, folklore, poetry, and lived experience. It reflects the ethos of the Dogra community and serves as a vital link between generations.
The inclusion of Dogri in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India was a milestone achieved after sustained effort and recognition of its linguistic and cultural importance. That inclusion was not symbolic. It was meant to ensure that Dogri occupies its rightful place in governance, education, and public life. Yet, incidents like this reveal a troubling gap between constitutional recognition and administrative practice.
The consequences of this omission extend far beyond symbolism. Recruitment policies directly impact access to employment. When knowledge of a “local language” is made mandatory, the choice of that language determines who qualifies and who is left behind. By excluding Dogri, the system inadvertently places Dogra youth at a disadvantage in a competitive process.
This is not merely an issue of language. It is an issue of equity and opportunity. It raises a basic question about fairness. Can a process truly claim to be inclusive if it fails to recognize the linguistic identity of the very people it seeks to recruit?
The strong reaction from Dogri Sanstha Jammu reflects the seriousness of the matter. Under the leadership of Padmashree Prof. Lalit Magotra, the organization has rightly called out the omission as discriminatory and unacceptable. This response is not an overreaction. It is a necessary assertion of linguistic rights.
There is also a broader sentiment underlying this response. Many in Jammu increasingly feel that their linguistic and cultural identity is not receiving due recognition in official frameworks. Whether this perception is acknowledged or not, it has real consequences. It creates a sense of alienation and erodes trust in institutions.
India’s strength lies in its diversity. Its linguistic plurality is not a challenge to be managed but an asset to be respected. The framers of the Constitution understood this well. That is why the Eighth Schedule exists. It is a framework designed to protect and promote linguistic diversity, ensuring that no language community feels marginalized.
However, constitutional provisions alone are not enough. They must be reflected in everyday governance. When official notifications fail to align with constitutional values, they undermine the very principles they are meant to uphold.
This incident also points to a deeper issue in administrative processes. It suggests that there may be insufficient engagement with regional realities while framing policies. Jammu’s linguistic landscape is well known. Dogri’s centrality to the region is beyond dispute. Any meaningful consultation or even a basic review of local context would have ensured its inclusion.
Such omissions therefore raise uncomfortable but necessary questions. Are decision-making processes adequately informed by ground realities? Are regional voices being heard? Or are policies being framed in a manner that overlooks the diversity they are supposed to accommodate?
The answers to these questions are important, because they determine the credibility of institutions. A system that appears disconnected from local realities risks losing public trust.
The path forward, however, is neither complicated nor contentious. The notification must be withdrawn and reissued with the inclusion of Dogri as a recognized local language for Jammu. This is the most immediate and necessary corrective step. It restores fairness and aligns the process with both constitutional principles and regional realities.
At the same time, accountability must not be overlooked. Administrative lapses of this nature cannot be dismissed as routine errors. Identifying where the process failed and ensuring that similar mistakes do not recur is essential. Without accountability, correction remains incomplete.
This moment also calls for collective responsibility. Political parties, civil society organizations, student groups, literary bodies, and cultural institutions in Jammu must come together to address this issue. Linguistic identity is not a partisan concern. It is a shared heritage that transcends political boundaries.
At the same time, the response must remain constructive and democratic. The objective is not to escalate conflict but to secure correction. Engagement, dialogue, and sustained advocacy are the most effective tools in ensuring that the issue is addressed meaningfully.
It is also important to recognize the long-term implications of such omissions. Marginalization does not happen overnight. It occurs gradually, through repeated exclusions that eventually become normalized. Today, it may be a recruitment notification. Tomorrow, it could extend to education policy, administrative communication, or cultural representation.
Allowing such patterns to develop unchecked would be a disservice not only to Dogri but to the broader principle of linguistic diversity in India.
This is why the present moment must be seen as an opportunity as much as a challenge. It is an opportunity for institutions to reaffirm their commitment to inclusivity. It is an opportunity to demonstrate responsiveness and sensitivity. And it is an opportunity to strengthen trust by acknowledging and correcting a mistake.
The Reserve Bank of India, as one of the country’s most respected institutions, has both the responsibility and the credibility to act decisively. A prompt correction will not only resolve the issue but also send a strong message that fairness and inclusivity are non-negotiable.
For the youth of Jammu, this is not an abstract debate. It is about their future.
It is about whether their identity is recognized or overlooked in spaces that shape their opportunities. It is about whether they are seen and heard within the systems that govern them.
Dogri is not an optional addition to Jammu’s linguistic profile. It is central to it. Recognizing it is not a matter of convenience. It is a matter of responsibility.
In the end, the question is simple. Will institutions uphold the spirit of the Constitution, or will they allow gaps between principle and practice to persist?
The answer will be reflected not in words, but in action.
Correcting this omission is not just necessary. It is imperative. It is a test of institutional integrity and a reaffirmation of the values that define a diverse and democratic nation.
(The writer is a National Scholarship and Fellowship Holder from Ministry of Culture and Government of India)
